Windsor, Ramadan, and More AFR Hype

Listening to American Family Radio (AFR) in March, I caught a story about Ramadan fast-breaking being held at Windsor Castle. As expected the story was misrepresented. They were invited by Charles - though not without controversy. He is well known as an advocate of inter-religious and ecumenical projects. For some this is controversial as he is officially the 'Defender of the Faith' as head of the Church of England.

The whole thing is a bit of a farce when one considers the genesis of the Anglican Church and Henry VIII's title to that end. Attempts were made to actually reform the Anglican Church in subsequent generations. This later led to civil war and the latitudinarianism of the 18th century. The 19th century also witnessed a kind of Restorationist movement in the Anglo-Catholicism of the Oxford (or Tractarian) Movement.

In their case it wasn't a return to Scripture per se but rather an attempt to roll back the clock pre-1054, recapturing Old Catholicism and as such rejecting the claims of the Papacy that emerged with the Gregorian Reform and the rise of the so-called Imperial Papacy later that century. With this shift came not only a changed ecclesiology but also a different emphasis on doctrine.

For some the Old Catholicism also harks back to somewhat romanticised notions of the old Anglo-Saxon Church and for others the Celtic. Both strains resist (if not reject) the ecclesiastical and political changes that came after 1066 and one might say the Norman ethos in general which was forward looking and as such embraced the new Latin Christianity that would emerge with the High Middle Ages. Of course, the popes and Normans were not always on friendly terms but they did often collaborate in the politics of Italy and the papacy's struggles with both the German and Byzantine emperors.

The Oxford Movement succeeded in changing some of the liturgical practice within 19th century Anglicanism but also in many respects it failed. Britain placed all its stock in the Empire and the Church became merely a mechanism for reinforcing its claims and values. As the Empire failed in the 20th century, the nation built a faith atop the narratives surrounding its role in World War II and in the stability of the monarchy. Elizabeth II is remembered with fondness and yet her long reign was (by some reckonings) something of a tragedy as she presided over the dismantling of the empire and Britain's slide into being a second-tier power. Thatcherism attempted to arrest this process but also failed and we saw the impetus again emerge with Brexit - and now Britain's desperate attempt to be the bridge, the critical link keeping Atlanticism and NATO alive. Britain is trying to become the essential nation in that it has one hand joined with Washington and another on the continent. Time will tell if this arrangement holds.

The monarchy itself is somewhat precarious and while many believe it would have been better served bypassing Charles and falling to the much more popular William and Kate, the son of Elizabeth had long wanted to be king and believes he has a role to play in transforming the monarchy. Unlike William who by all accounts has little patience with or interest in religious rites and obligations, Charles takes it seriously but from the standpoint of a post-Christian modern man - one torn between dreams of monarchy and all that it represents and modern liberal society and its ideals and values.

Charles represents a segment of the British population that believes the monarchy can still play an important role as a constitutional monarch. In the modern democracy that is Britain, Charles believes he needs to be a defender of faith as opposed to the old role of defender of 'the' faith - a faith almost no one in Britain believes in any more.

This is lamented by some and angers others who believe the nation should go through the motions even if no one believes in it. Such rituals and symbols seem to grant them no small degree of satisfaction. Others think that by going through the motions the Christian faith will be served and strengthened. The thing is - the entire Anglican project has been built on a flawed foundation from its 16th century beginning. Despite the claims of some and the romanticised fantasies of others, the British Empire itself was fundamentally anti-Christian in its practice - though it hid behind a Christian veneer. These institutions - the Church of England and the monarchy have in many respects run their course.

The Anglican movement has re-invented itself in some contexts such as Africa and America but the monarchy doesn't have that option. It is bound to Britain and as such Charles believes he must modernise and expand its ability to resonate with the public. The truth be told, it's unlikely he's going to win over any serious Muslims - but these moves have succeeded in alienating some of the misguided Christians who still believe in the Church of England and the tokens of Christendom. We'll leave aside the blasphemous claims of the monarch being the 'head' of the Church.

There's a context to these events - the Ramadan fast-breaking at Windsor. They may nevertheless displease a lot of people, but I'm always a little puzzled when I hear Evangelicals get excited about the monarch's role vis-a-vis the Anglican Church. Why any of this should upset them is beyond me.
AFR for its part simply was looking for a vehicle or means to criticise Islam and engage in some fear-mongering. Echoing the Right-wing movements in the UK and on the continent, they posited that the Muslims are essentially taking over and this Windsor Castle event all but proves it. They're in the very centres of power. They're calling the shots - or so it is being implied.

The term 'Great Replacement' wasn't used but that's certainly what the AFR pundits were pushing. One even used the substitute concept of 'demographic jihad' to express the same set of ideas.

I cannot condone Charles' ecumenism or accommodations to Islam - but the whole business is rather absurd. But nor I can condone AFR's appropriation of these events in order to score political points and drum up some angst and ire. But beneath the surface of their subterfuge lies a very ugly ideology that has the potential to be dangerous and violent. It has a close cousin in America's Trumpism. The Right on both continents wants to wage war against immigrants and immigration even while both Establishments look to profit from the chaos they generate in other parts of the world - which in turn leads to the immigration of desperate people.

As usual when it comes to AFR - the whole thing sickened me.